Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 25, Issue 1 , Pages 37-42, January 2010

Biomechanical evaluation of a new reconstruction technique of the ulnar collateral ligament in the elbow with modified bone tunnel placement and interference screw fixation

  • Kenneth S. Seiber

      Affiliations

    • Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Long Beach VA Healthcare System and University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
  • ,
  • Felix H. Savoie

      Affiliations

    • Mississippi Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center, Jackson, MS, USA
  • ,
  • Michelle H. McGarry

      Affiliations

    • Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Long Beach VA Healthcare System and University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
  • ,
  • Ranjan Gupta

      Affiliations

    • Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Long Beach VA Healthcare System and University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
  • ,
  • Thay Q. Lee

      Affiliations

    • Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Long Beach VA Healthcare System and University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, VA Long Beach Healthcare System (09/151), 5901 East 7th Street, Long Beach, CA 90822, USA.

Received 3 July 2008; accepted 11 September 2009. published online 19 October 2009.

Abstract 

Background

A new method for reconstruction of the anterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament using modified bone tunnel placement and interference screw fixation was developed to minimize operative dissection, improve graft tensioning, and reduce associated operative morbidities. The objective of this study was to compare varus–valgus laxity and failure properties of this new ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction to the intact ulnar collateral ligament.

Methods

Nine matched pairs of cadaveric upper extremities were used, the intact ulnar collateral ligament as the control for the load to failure properties and the contralateral arm for ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. Varus–valgus laxity was measured at 30°, 50°, 70°, and 90° of elbow flexion for intact, ulnar collateral ligament transected, and ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction was performed using a tendon graft passed through a bone tunnel and looped around the medial column of the humerus without dissection of the ulnar nerve. Distally, the graft was looped through a bone tunnel in the proximal ulna. Both ends were secured with interference screws. The specimens were loaded to failure at 50° of flexion at a rate of 30deg/s. Repeated measures analysis of variance with a P value of 0.05 was used.

Findings

Elbow laxity significantly increased with ulnar collateral ligament transection. Following reconstruction, varus–valgus laxity at 30° and 50° of elbow flexion was completely restored to the intact state, only partially restored at 70°, and not changed at 90°. There was no significant difference between the yield and ultimate torques for the intact vs. reconstructed elbows. The angular displacement at yield and failure was significantly greater for the reconstructed elbows compared to the intact.

Interpretation

This reconstruction technique provides comparable strength to that of the native ligament. While stability was improved, failure occurred at greater angular displacement for the reconstructed limbs.

Keywords: Ulnar collateral ligament, Reconstruction, Varus–valgus laxity, Load to failure

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0268-0033(09)00218-6

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.09.005

Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 25, Issue 1 , Pages 37-42, January 2010